[/b]
I keep getting Easter Sunday surprises. Its almost certain Schwartz is the red herring in the Stride murder investigation, and considering the way his story even suggests that the murder started with a street assault by a gentile, its surely a creation for the Clubs benefit, not a recollection.

If Schwartz was trying to suggest the attacker he saw was a gentile, then he did a particularly poor job of it. Abberline said "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say". Hardly the sort of definitive statement designed to deflect suspicion away from Jews. And Swanson's report actually says "the use of Lipski increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew". So the entire exercise was apparently a dismal failure.

Quote:

Take Israel out of the equation altogether, then remove Brown, because at 12:45 he clearly saw the young couple also seen by Fanny and so he didnt see Liz Stride either, and then follow the story from PC Smiths departure at 12:35, and youll see a whole different scenario. Liz not being seen in ANY of Fannys occasional trips to the doorway between 12:30 and 1am, and certainly not after 12:50. But Spooner, Heschberg, and Kozebrodksi saw her during that 12:35-1am time frame. Dying, in the passageway.

This simply makes no sense. If it wasn't Stride & companion who Brown saw at 12:45, then it was most likely Spooner & sweetheart, who we know were hanging about in Fairclough St that night. But according to his time guestimate (and thus you), Spooner had already been alerted to the murder by this time, by Louis and Koz shouting for the police. Something Brown didn't hear until 15 minutes later when he'd finished his supper.
And once again; Whatever time Heshburg thought it was, he wasn't alerted to the murder until after the police had arrived.

If Schwartz was trying to suggest the attacker he saw was a gentile, then he did a particularly poor job of it. Abberline said "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say". Hardly the sort of definitive statement designed to deflect suspicion away from Jews. And Swanson's report actually says "the use of Lipski increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew". So the entire exercise was apparently a dismal failure.

It doesn't matter who the slur was directed at, the use of "Lipski" alone implied that Liz's attacker was an antisemite. That Swanson still believed the killer was Jewish based on this evidence is neither here nor there. If anything, it typifies the prejudice regarding the killer's ethnicity.

It doesn't matter who the slur was directed at, the use of "Lipski" alone implied that Liz's attacker was an antisemite. That Swanson still believed the killer was Jewish based on this evidence is neither here nor there. If anything, it typifies the prejudice regarding the killer's ethnicity.

But it was only Abberline who suggested it was used as an insult, Schwartz never even thought it was directed at himself. He was either unable to say, or the attacker shouted it to Pipeman (which is why Swanson drew the conclusion he did) or according to the Star it was Pipeman who shouted it to the attacker. If Israel wanted to incriminate a gentile all he had to do was to agree with Abberline, or say as much in the first place.
The fact that the police might have been prejudiced would make it even more important to state clearly who was shouting what and at who. But Schwartz fails to do this.

I'm fairly convinced Schwartz lied, although I don't believe there was a club conspiracy. I think he acted independently.

I would think John that Israel fabricating as a favour to his friend Woolf Wess is a better explanation than "I cant imagine why".

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

The lack of any evidence that his story was any factor in assessing Elizabeths death is clear,....the desire to make it so anyway isn't as transparent to me.

I suppose its akin to suggesting the killing was interrupted despite any evidence for that either.

I would think John that Israel fabricating as a favour to his friend Woolf Wess is a better explanation than "I cant imagine why".

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

The lack of any evidence that his story was any factor in assessing Elizabeths death is clear,....the desire to make it so anyway isn't as transparent to me.

I suppose its akin to suggesting the killing was interrupted despite any evidence for that either.

I just don't see any evidence of a club cover up-quite the reverse in fact. For instance, Lave and Eagle didn't have to reveal they had exited the club for a period before returning, and by doing so effectively presenting themselves as potential suspects. Of course, you could argue that club members may have contradicted them, but that's hardly consistent with a cover up. And if Schwartz was involved, why did he give a time of 12:45? Which, incidentally, was within just 5 minutes of the time Eagle estimated he returned after taking home his young lady. I mean, a sighting time close to 1:00 am would have been much more significant, i.e. because there then could be little doubt, on the basis of his evidence, that BS man was the murderer.

I just don't see any evidence of a club cover up-quite the reverse in fact. For instance, Lave and Eagle didn't have to reveal they had exited the club for a period before returning, and by doing so effectively presenting themselves as potential suspects. Of course, you could argue that club members may have contradicted them, but that's hardly consistent with a cover up. And if Schwartz was involved, why did he give a time of 12:45? Which, incidentally, was within just 5 minutes of the time Eagle estimated he returned after taking home his young lady. I mean, a sighting time close to 1:00 am would have been much more significant, i.e. because there then could be little doubt, on the basis of his evidence, that BS man was the murderer.

Frankly I don't see how you can deny a logical scenario John, but lets address your response. For one.....Lave and Eagle claimed to be about in the exact same place at the same time by their stories...yet neither man saw each other. No-one saw Eagle return, so we have only his word on the time. 3 Club members did in fact contradict Eagle, Lave and Diemshitz's times with the stories they told to reporters and police that night.

No-one came in via the gates between 12:50 and 1am, as per Fanny and her vigil during that time. She also neither saw or heard Eagle, Louis, Israel, BSman or Pipeman, only the young couple also seen by Brown. She said the streets were "deserted".

IF the club was thought to have been the source of the killer, the club would have closed..Louis and Mrs D would be out of work, Eagle would have no club to speak at the following Saturday, and likely the Diemshitz's, Wess and the Arbeter Fraint would have had to find other quarters. With Israels statement, it essentially ensures that wouldn't happen, and it casts suspicion off the clubs grounds out onto the street to a likely gentile killer. Extremely fortunate for the club that statement.

If you equate the Club with a modern anarchists club...like an outlaw bikers club for example, if a murder occurred on their property under the same climate as the Stride murder did...during a period of unsolved local murders...then the bikers would do what they needed to do cast suspicion off their attending members, or risk arrest and the clubs closure.

People lie all the time to protect themselves, why does this seem so incredible to so many here?

And Swanson's report actually says "the use of Lipski increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew". So the entire exercise was apparently a dismal failure.

The fact that its well recorded that Lipski was being used as a slur towards Jews at that time, it would seem Swanson needed to get out more.

Brown saw the young couple seen by Fanny. They were the ONLY people seen on that street by non-club witnesses after 12:35.

And all the club staff witnesses....Eagle, Lave, Wess, Louis...have nothing but their own stories to use for corroboration. Louis could easily have arrived around 12:45, which would be corroborated by 3 plus witnesses, and then sent for help 15 minutes later, which would make the rest of the authority stories fit.

The thing most everyone forgets is that Louis says he left with Issac[s] after 1am, Isaac K says he was SENT..alone..by Louis before 1am. Issac says this without equivocation.

Why isn't this sending of Issacs alone mentioned by anyone but himself?

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

Sorry, Michael but the burden of proof clearly rests on you since you are the one making the assertion that he lied. That is the way it works.

You demand evidence for any position you do not agree with yet you have no problem with asserting a club conspiracy with no evidence to support it. His failure to appear at the inquest is proof of nothing because WE DON"T KNOW why he did not appear. Just because the club might have had a reason to conspire does not necessarily mean that they did.

But this constant argument is indeed tiring. So I will make a deal with you. Feel free to assert that Schwartz lied and was part of a conspiracy but please don't tack on phrases like "it is almost certain that he lied." Then I won't have to reply. Deal?